Here's why some studies are pointless:
Here's an example of an article I found it basically says 2 glasses of milk improve muscle mass & help you lose fat - wow, milk must be ace then to do all that....then we get to the guts Here's the study.
First of we have the BMI being greater with the milk drinkers (the higher the BMI on the untrained person, usually means more fat , more fat is usually more easily dropped than lower fat levels).
Next they had two options no fat milk or a carb drink. So, you wouldn't get any protein from the carb drink. Therefore assuming you had identical calories from both drinks you'd have one (the milk) scuttling protein straight into muscle & quickly moving to an anabolic environment within the body, while with the carb drink you'd have no protein to move into the cells, so you'd remain catabolic until you'd eaten some protein, maybe many hours later.
This isn't a study it is more like marketing hype for the milk industry. I could do a study "Milk Vs Eating bricks post-workout" - what a surprise drinking milk is better than eating bricks after a workout. It's a stupid comparison & tells us absolutely nothing.
I'm hoping we all know that protein post-workout is a pretty vital thing (that can be from a shake, food or whatever). A better comparison would be to compare say milk to pure protein & a protein/carb mix; or even say a a hemp protein concentrate (which contains some essential fats) to a protein & a a protein/carb shake, or compare eating food to various shakes &/or milk. Any of these would actually tell you something interesting, this is just junk hype for a product that uneducated journalists are stupid enough to uncritically print.
Well that's my take on this particular piece of 'research'.
Home 
